some feedback re DCS evolution

I'm a long time flight sim player since Su27 Flanker days and have been playing off and on for quite a while.

Things seem to be getting more and more complicated with the way DCS is evolving.

First of all there's the two different iterations.....2.0 and 1.5. I understand at some point things will be unified. But right now some modules work with 2.0 and not 1.5, some modules work with 1.5 but not 2.0. Some modules are in Beta. Some terrains are pre release.

I'm realling having a hard time following along. This means when I went to come back to playing DCS after months hiatus it's quite time consuming to get playing again. Especially true if I have to remap my keys for my half a dozen modules.

Now we have Steam modules that I take it can't be played with desktop launched DCS World...is this correct?

I also have campaigns that were bought years ago on first release that don't show on my account anymore.

Maybe they got lost along the way? Does the online profile for searching for modules only go back certain number of years? Is that why I can't find them?

In Summary;

Likes;

the Launcher having all the modules in one place vs in the past having to launch each module with it's own exe.

the Launcher installing the modules for you that you've bought

the DCS web portal where you can look up past orders and find your serial numbers.

Dislikes

the need still for a 1.5 and 2.0 alpha. when can we get a unified Launcher?

the need for 'early access' modules What exactly is early access? Hawk t.1a has been early access for years now

having to redo my input mapping

releasing DCS modules on Steam. so now I if I buy Steam modules I can't launch them from my desktop launcher? why not just buy on Steam and have the serial number allow access from the desktop launcher?

I'd really want to get into the WW2 side of things as I have a couple of planes already bought.

Pls DCS try to uncomplicate things for us casual gamers.

Thank you.

the need still for a 1.5 and 2.0 alpha. when can we get a unified Launcher?

 

the need for 'early access' modules What exactly is early access? Hawk t.1a has been early access for years now

 

having to redo my input mapping

 

releasing DCS modules on Steam. so now I if I buy Steam modules I can't launch them from my desktop launcher? why not just buy on Steam and have the serial number allow access from the desktop launcher?

1. When v2.5 is ready.

2. Early access is another word for Beta/Alpha, not ready for release. The 'need' would have to do with a) getting revenue b) getting a wider testing base.

3. You don't always have to redo them. It depends on what has changed.

4. ED does not have control over that situation which currently only affects the Mirage. All other modules can be purchased on Steam and used on Standalone.

I think that the community will be very happy when the integrated version with support for all current maps and modules is released to production :-)

Still, currently there is only 1 release version, and that's the only one you have to have to play DCS.

If you want to 'play to test' (where you get early access, and in return put up with having multiple installs and a few bugs/unfinished modules) then you can chose to do so.

I'm not convinced that having read the conditions and opting in, people can complain about the difficulties they volunteered to put up with.

The worst thing about this simulator right now, apart from the two different versions and all the alpha things, is that you have to be very careful when choosing what modules you buy, because most of them are made by 3rd parties, and their levels of quality are very different, actually very few of them are even finished, even after years of being released, so before you buy, do a research (web, youtube, buyers opinions) of every module you want to not have unpleasant surprises.

I think most of this problems will be solved when 2.5 arrives at last, things will evolve a lot faster and with less trouble.

The possitive thing, this is the best military simulator BY FAR, it has a great present and even a greater future, it evolves slowly, but solid, we will be enjoying it for years to come.

4. ED does not have control over that situation which currently only affects the Mirage. All other modules can be purchased on Steam and used on Standalone.

Sure they do, how about doing a discount for the mirage on the standalone version. This flip flopping between versions is pretty horrible.

Sure they do,

This OPs question is not about sales but about compatibility of Steam keys with the Standalone version.

1. When v2.5 is ready.

 

2. Early access is another word for Beta/Alpha, not ready for release. The 'need' would have to do with a) getting revenue b) getting a wider testing base.

 

3. You don't always have to redo them. It depends on what has changed.

 

4. ED does not have control over that situation which currently only affects the Mirage. All other modules can be purchased on Steam and used on Standalone.

The OP does bring up some good points. Particularly the point about "early access". While most of us know that beta/alpha products will come with bugs and issues, there is an expectation that the product will be finished. This is particularly the case when a customer has to purchase the product. Implicit in that purchase arrangement is that while they will get access earlier than waiting for the finished product, the product will be completed. But if the publisher never finishes the product (which is what they are signaling by leaving it in "early access/beta/alpha" status for long term or indefinitely), then they are not fulfilling their end of the bargain. Hopefully ED takes note of 3rd party publishers that are doing this and factors that in to their decision to support additional products from that publisher.

Otherwise, "early access", etc. is just a semantics way for publishers to avoid accountability for their inability to come through with their product commitments.

Otherwise, "early access", etc. is just a semantics way for publishers to avoid accountability for their inability to come through with their product commitments.

Wise words.

Once 2.5 comes on scene it will simplify everything for Developers and Players alike.

nonsense, and frankly insulting.

 

developing a complex simulator like DCS takes a lot of time, the only way to do this and to move the technology forward is with alpha / early access.

I'm sorry you're insulted, but your quote of me leaves out the important part that adds context, specifically, publishers leaving a product they are selling in "early access/beta" stage indefinitely. The OP mentions the Hawk as a plane that has been in this status for "years". I'm new to the community, so I don't know the history, but no one has refuted his statement, so I'm assuming it to be true. If it is the case, that doesn't seem right to me. But maybe its not the case. I certainly didn't see any mention of the product not being a release version in the DCS shop.

My point, however, remains regarding the use of terms such as alpha, beta, or early access. In 30 years of computer gaming in various genres, I've gotten used to how those terms are typically used in the industry. Alpha is typically a closed access framework in early development stages. It is recognizable as many core systems are not installed in the game yet. Once all core systems are in game, it moves to beta status, where systems are finished and tweaked, and polish is put on. After that is done to a satisfactory level, then the developer closes out beta and releases to the product for sale.

DCS has chosen to go a different route, as is their right. But when they use terms that are typically used in different ways, they should not be surprised by confusion. Once one starts paying money, how long should they be told that any concerns or criticisms are unjustified because "its only in beta"? What is the criteria for something to become full release version?

Don't get me wrong. I've been enjoying DCS and am happy with the purchases I have made (the four WWII planes, Normandy and the WWII asset pack). The planes are great. And Normandy seems well done, albeit not yet finished. But hey, its still early access. But if someone tells me two years from now that I can't complain about something because Normandy is still in "early access", I have no doubt I will have a strong reaction to that lunacy.

I fly several modules that are still in pre-release stage and am having tons of fun with them. Releasing a module takes years and I prefer to fly it earlier if possible, even if not every feature is already implemented.

Well, the M-2000C from Razbam shows that a module can go from Early Access to "Released" state without any annoucement or update. Just because somebody decided to do so.

There is a lot of cutting edge tech getting done tested and merged here, well that’s what I see now with 2.1 out, I thought it was good before, but holy smokes this is looking good, yes needs tweaking, it's been a long hard road to merge this tech together and make sure it's right for a bright future, not just for ED, for us too right.

If you want stable use the stable release aircraft and map. I like how we get to use the alpha, ED could hide away and not release anything and then I wouldn’t get to enjoy what I have now and help ED test things out while it's in development.

My point, however, remains regarding the use of terms such as alpha, beta, or early access. In 30 years of computer gaming in various genres, I've gotten used to how those terms are typically used in the industry. Alpha is typically a closed access framework in early development stages. It is recognizable as many core systems are not installed in the game yet. Once all core systems are in game, it moves to beta status, where systems are finished and tweaked, and polish is put on. After that is done to a satisfactory level, then the developer closes out beta and releases to the product for sale.

DCS has chosen to go a different route, as is their right. But when they use terms that are typically used in different ways, they should not be surprised by confusion. Once one starts paying money, how long should they be told that any concerns or criticisms are unjustified because "its only in beta"? What is the criteria for something to become full release version?

For me, I do not; in any way shape or form, compare what ED is doing, with any other sim or developer. They are not doing what ED is trying to do here in this small niche market, like I said before, I'm blown away with how things are going and it's only going to get better here as we are seeing, yes there will be hurdles along the way of course, because of the cutting edge tech and the workload and that’s why it’s Alpha right.

.

If you are not satisfied with early access purchases, the answer is easy. Wait till full release.

...for years...and years...and then more years.

...for years...and years...and then more years.

DCS will be in constant development dufay, always getting better for us right.

That's what I see from your post here, what is good enough in this niche anyway, I'm glad ED will always try and get things that little bit better for us now and for the foreseeable future.

.

DCS will be in constant development.

That's totally ok and understandable.

What is not ok is wrong project management etc. a tendency to develop multiple things at once which results in unfinished projects. Also, starting working on another projects without finishing previous ones. That applies even more when we'll think about external companies.